<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Forum  
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

June 1 2017, 12:00 AM 










""AAF: EVEN THOUGH THE RESTAURANT AND OBSERVATORY ARE IN REALITY
ALWAYS JUST 1 METRE APART"!!! Sure! ..."








Thank you . . .



happy.gif



As pointed out earlier, it is not a matter of co-locations;
but a matter of relative velocities.


If Alice, in the southern suburb of Oslo, is moving relative to
the non-attached restaurant, then the light rays, reflected or
emitted by that restaurant, will be bent in the forward
direction of Alice's motion.


And because of that, Alice sees the non-attached restaurant each
time in a different spot on the celestial sphere.


That is what light aberration is all about;
correct?



happy.gif















 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

June 3 2017, 12:00 AM 










""AAF: However, the light of the red spot changes its direction, on
a minute-by-minute basis, NOT because it's intelligent & free; but because the city
of Oslo is rotating under the red spot." And, since the Restaurant is always just
1 metre away from the observatory, then Oslo must be rotating relative
to the Observatory the exact same way"








Pay close attention, please . . .


The main point, under discussion here, is quite subtle;
even the legendary physicist Albert Einstein couldn't
see the slightest glimpse of it.


Can you believe it?




wink.gif




It's true that the actual position of the non-attached restaurant
is always just ONE meter away from the actual position
of the attached observatory.


But the motion of the observer, in this case, bends the coming light
rays from the non-attached restaurant in the forward direction and
changes its apparent position, on the celestial sphere, in accordance
with Bradley's law of light aberration:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-05/2-05.htm


Is everything clear, now?




happy.gif












 
 
Anonym

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

June 3 2017, 7:44 AM 

Yep happy.gif

 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

June 5 2017, 12:00 AM 










Thanks; Anonym . . .



What a smart kid!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARjNeCaB0P8



[linked image]





…..............................................................................................................................................................................





"- and the red and blue photons must travel side-by-side all the way
down, so both arriving at Oslo from the same direction. ... Or are you now saying that
restaurant and observatory are not ALWAYS just 1 metre apart, but only occasionally
- that the earth's rotation takes the observatory away from the restaurant?"








Let me repeat one more time:

It is not, here, a matter of co-locations;
but a matter of relative velocities!



wink.gif



The tangential velocity of Alice, in the city of Oslo, bends the coming light
rays, from the non-attached restaurant, and changes its apparent position,
high in the sky, according to the law of light aberration:


http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V14NO2PDF/V14N2RUS.pdf


But at the same time, the true position of the attached observatory remains the same,
high in the sky; because the observer (Alice), in this case,
has no tangential velocity at all relative
to that observatory.


And that is what Bradley's law of aberration
is all about.




happy.gif














 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

June 7 2017, 12:00 AM 










""AAF: And that is because the non-attached restaurant has relative
motion, as seen from Oslo; while the attached observatory does not have any relative
motion with respect to Oslo." Yet again: NO!"







Oh; yes!



wink.gif



Even in the extreme case, in which the non-attached restaurant
& the attached observatory are assumed to be two spots of light
occupying exactly the same place, the light rays from the non-attached
restaurant must be bent in the forward direction of Alice's
tangential velocity.


While, by contrast, the light rays from the attached observatory must
remain traveling along the same straight lines regardless of whether
Alice is moving or at rest.


And since according to Bradley's law of light aberration, whenever the light
rays are bent in the forward direction of the observer's motion, the separation
between the true position & the apparent position of their source is directly
proportional to the factor v/c; where v is the tangential velocity
of the observer & c is the speed of incident light.


That is, after all, what the law of light aberration
is all about!




happy.gif

















 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

June 9 2017, 12:00 AM 










"It is perfectly possible for two objects to be stationary with respect
to each other without a physical connection - and that is explicitly the case with
the Observatory and the Restaurant."








Is perfectly possible for the non-attached restaurant
& the attached observatory to be stationary
with respect to each other?


I guess not!



wink.gif



As a matter fact, it's absolutely impossible for the non-attached restaurant
& the attached observatory to be stationary with respect to each other
for more than one tiny fraction of a nanosecond.


And the main reason behind it, of course, is that the attached observatory
is rotating with the earth's angular velocity; while the non-attached
restaurant is assumed to have no angular velocity at all.


It's that simple!



happy.gif













 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

June 11 2017, 12:00 AM 









"They are always TOGETHER, stationary relative to eachother (always just
1 metre apart), and with exactly the same rotation in ALL respects - and whether
or not a beam connects them does not change that."








It's a catch-22:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic)



[linked image]



If the two are assumed to be one attached and one non-attached,
then thy can't remain TOGETHER.


That is on one hand.


On the other hand, if the two are assumed to be always together
& stationary relative to each other, then they can't be one attached
and one non-attached at the same time.


Have I succeeded in making this simple fact
of nature very clear at last?



wink.gif















 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

June 13 2017, 12:00 AM 









"And since they are stationary relative to each other, then
by definition they have the SAME relative motion as seen from Oslo. ..."






No . . .



wink.gif



The non-attached restaurant & the attached observatory cannot remain
stationary relative to each other.


That is because the term 'attached', within the current context,
implies, necessarily, that the observatory is rotating, around the North
Pole, with the same angular velocity as that of the earth.


While, the term 'non-attached', by contrast, implies that
the restaurant has no angular velocity whatsoever.


PERIOD!




happy.gif












 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

June 15 2017, 12:00 AM 











"Or are you now saying that restaurant and observatory are not ALWAYS
just 1 metre apart, but only occasionally - that the earth's rotation takes the observatory
away from the restaurant (and so the restaurant is not always over the North Pole)?"







Surely; in the case of Earth, I would not just say that
the non-attached restaurant and the attached observatory
are not, always, just 1 meter apart; but, due to Earth's
orbital velocity of about 30 kilometers per second,
around the Sun, I would, also, say that the two will,
eventually, be millions & millions of miles apart.


Am I right?



happy.gif









 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

June 17 2017, 12:00 AM 









""How adorable & friendly this guy is". Heh, reminds me of the
adorable "siberian hamster" on Fawlty Towers - "Cuddle that and you'll never play
the guitar again!""








YEP . . .


It is true!



wink.gif



That 'adorable & cuddly' guy is behaving
& acting, all the time, like this
Cute Siberian Hamster:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kR5zGYplI4



happy.gif













 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

June 19 2017, 12:00 AM 









""AAF: I believe that the camera is following the little kid."
[linked image]
(or would you prefer
[linked image] )
..."








I would say that I prefer both
at the same time!



wink.gif



Do you have any objections
against that?


Here's, once again, the main points
of the previous conclusion:


1. The video camera is following
the little kid.


2. The little kid is rotating with
the tiny merry-go-round.


3. At the same time, things,
in the background, are swinging back and forth all time.


It follows, therefore, that the video camera must be rotating
around its axis.



happy.gif













 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

June 21 2017, 12:00 AM 









"And it's just such a plain, simple, obvious and straightforward video,as well."
http://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-11630222-stock-footage-lovely-child-playing-at-playground-boy-rotating-parents-watching.html






Well . . .



happy.gif



If it's a plain, simple, obvious and straightforward video,
then just go ahead & explain to me, in simple English, please,
how it's possible for all things, in the foreground, and all things,
in the background, to be rotating, around some stationary axis,
in that video, all the time.



It's that simple!



wink.gif







 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

June 23 2017, 12:00 AM 











Hi; Ufonaut99 & Jaquecusto:



"Professor Stephen Hawking says he's not the only one who believes
humans have to find a new planet to populate within 100 years"
:

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/stephen-hawking-100-years-on-earth-prediction-starmus-festival




[linked image]





............................................................................................................................................................................





""Jaquecusto: Will the gyroscope remain parallel to the tangent of the
Earth's curvature, or it will memorize a plane in absolute space?"
Interesting question."






Well; let's take a closer look:



[linked image]



If the wheel is set in motion, at any point of Earth's surface,
then the rapidly spinning wheel will keep pointing to the initial
direction of the gyroscope, at that point.


While, at the same time, the rest of that gyroscope will remain parallel
to the tangent of the Earth's curvature.


And consequently, we can say, without any hesitation, that the rapidly
spinning wheel does memorize a specific 'plane in absolute space';
but the rest of the gyroscope does not.


What will Colleague Ufonaut99 say
about that?


Not very much . . .


I presume!




happy.gif











 
 
Stanley16

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

June 25 2017, 12:00 AM 










"One fundamental point - NOTHING in physics "memorizes" anything. Every
action at every event operates solely from the factors at that time,
not from before."







Oh; yeah?



wink.gif



How are you going to reconcile that with your arguments for the quantum
entanglement in the previous thread?

http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1366340543/1/%27Spooky+Action+at+a+Distance%27+Aboard+the+International+Space+Station


Surely, you supported, back then, the notion that the two entangled particles
do remember their 'entangling' past.


Am I correct?



happy.gif








 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

June 27 2017, 12:00 AM 










"For example, take Newton's F = ma; if object A gets hit by B travelling
at 10kph, it doesn't matter if B has been travelling at 10kph for the past day,
or it's only just accelerated to that speed a few seconds ago."









That is, absolutely, true.



happy.gif



Nonetheless, it's still possible and reasonable, as well,
to say that Particle A will continue to remember that
10-kph HIT, as long as the total resultant of
external forces, acting upon it,
remains equal to zero.


Did I get this ONE
right?




wink.gif










 
 
 
< Previous Page 113 14 15 16 17 Next >
  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Forum  
 Copyright © 1999-2017 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement